ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2021
Does geodemographic segmentation explain differences in route of cancer diagnosis above and beyond person-level sociodemographic variables?
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Practical Strategy of Informatics, Geospatial Mapping, Geodemographic Segmentation, and Regression Analyses to Address Nonadherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- The shift of expenditure of medical service for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer from 2005 to 2014: a hospital-based retrospective survey in Guangxi.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of cancer in the Emergency Department: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- High polygenic risk score is a risk factor associated with colorectal cancer based on data from the UK Biobank.PloS one · 2023Article
- Geodemographic insights on the COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Wisconsin and the role of risky facilities.GeoJournal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency diagnosis of cancer is associated with poorer short-term survival and may reflect delayed help-seeking. Optimal targeting of interventions to raise awareness of cancer symptoms is therefore needed.
methodsWe examined the risk of emergency presentation of lung and colorectal cancer (diagnosed in 2016 in England). By cancer site, we used logistic regression (outcome emergency/non-emergency presentation) adjusting for patient-level variables (age, sex, deprivation and ethnicity) with/without adjustment for geodemographic segmentation (Mosaic) group.
resultsAnalysis included 36 194 and 32 984 patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Greater levels of deprivation were strongly associated with greater odds of emergency presentation, even after adjustment for Mosaic group, which nonetheless attenuated associations (odds ratio [OR] most/least deprived group = 1.67 adjusted [model excluding Mosaic], 1.28 adjusted [model including Mosaic], P < 0.001 for both, for colorectal; respective OR values of 1.42 and 1.18 for lung, P < 0.001 for both). Similar findings were observed for increasing age. There was large variation in risk of emergency presentation between Mosaic groups (crude OR for highest/lowest risk group = 2.30, adjusted OR = 1.89, for colorectal; respective values of 1.59 and1.66 for lung).
conclusionVariation in risk of emergency presentation in cancer patients can be explained by geodemography, additional to deprivation group and age. The findings support proof of concept for public health interventions targeting all the examined attributes, including geodemography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.